spin

I started this list in another thread, but thought it might be of use if we could develop it. Here it is:

1. Gen 1:1,
   In the beginning god created...
   In the beginning when god created... or ... of god's creating...
   
2. Deu 32:9,
   sons of El,
   sons of Israel
   
3. Ps. 22:16,
   "pierced"
   
4. Is. 7:14,
   "virgin",
   "young woman"
   
5. Dan 9:25,
   "seven weeks (sevens) and sixty-two weeks (sevens);...", (allowing the 7 & 62 to be added together, separating the 62 from what follows)
   "seven weeks (sevens); and sixty-two weeks (sevens)..."

And I've just come across another interesting example of tendentious translation in Rev 1:13 and 14:14, which both mention "one like a son of man", which is a direct reference to Daniel 7:13. The problem arises when it is translated not as "one like a son..." but as "one like the son...", the expression which is used not as a simple description but as a title of Jesus. Quite a lot of bibles insert a "the", relate the Rev verses to the gospel use of the titular "son of man", and disguise evidence for the possibility that Revelation is earlier than the gospels.

     6. Rev 1:13 and 14:14,

like the son of man,
like a son of man

So, we're fishing for more examples of translations that clearly step beyond the realm of scholarship into religious bias. Got any?

Vivisector

Absolutely interesting info, Spin. I just noticed that the NIV (which I had always considered a reasonable English translation) correctly translates the Revelation verses, but not Is 7:14 (FWIW).

Have you noted evidence of the same sort of bias in the variants ultimately selected for inclusion in the GNT 4? Metzger's Textual Commentary has (so far) convinced me that scholarship drove the process; but I could easily be wrong.

Cheers,

V.

stephan huller

Not exactly what you are looking for but I like Irenaeus's translation of Gen 1:1 “In his son, God created ...” (Proof Apost)

avi

Interesting.

Can you give us a link to Irenaeus' Greek text? Alternatively, perhaps, if it is found in Adversus Haereses, a link to W.Wigan Harvey's Latin text will readily suffice....

I wonder which Greek version of LXX "Irenaeus" employed to derive such a peculiar translation, or perhaps "Irenaeus" read the original Hebrew, so this quote, attributed to him, represents a translation from Hebrew to Greek (and then, translated by you, or someone else, into English for our benefit)? Did "Irenaeus" alternatively translate from the Greek Septuagint to Latin? Or, is your quote above intended to represent an interpretation, rather than a translation, by "Ireneaeus"?

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
I am rather fond of the straight forward, old fashioned, literal translation, myself....

I certainly find nothing in the Greek text, about sons, daughters, or parents.

avi

stephan huller

Irenaeus believed that the Old Testament was a Christian book for Moses mentioned the pre-existent Son of God in Hebrew at the beginning of Genesis: Bereshith bara Elohim basan benitam samenthares. Somehow he had the impression that this means, "Son (bara) in the beginning (bereshith); God (Elohim) established then the heaven (ha-shammayim) and the earth (ha-arets)." Whether or not he got this from an exegetical tradition, bara really means "created" and is not the same as bar, "son." At the same time interestingly he laughs at the Ophites for their lack of familiarity with Hebrew (!)

It is worth noting that Jewish and Samaritan tradition while acknowledging the true meaning of the verse applies a lot of imagination to these same verses. Instead of Bereshith some read the verse as bara sith 'he created (the number) six'

stephan huller

Another interesting side bar since you are so interested in the LXX, avi. Ephrem somewhere (the reference is at my blog) criticizes the Marcionites for their use of the Hebrew recension of the scriptures (which one is anyone's guess). Ephrem argues that the LXX is actually preferable rendering of parallel passages (!). It is difficult to over-estimate how significant this is.

spin

We need to keep focused on modern biblical translation, ie presented in our era as what the bible says.

1. Gen 1:1,
   In the beginning god created... (forcing creation from nothing)
   In the beginning when god created... or ... of god's creating...
   
   
2. Deu 32:8,
   sons of Israel, (hiding polytheism)
   sons of El
   [Note: I presented this incorrectly earlier, both wrong verse and converse order]
   
   
3. Ps. 22:16,
   "pierced", (faking prophecy)
   
   
4. Is. 7:14,
   "virgin", (faking prophecy)
   "young woman"
   
   
5. Dan 9:25,
   "seven weeks (sevens) and sixty-two weeks (sevens);...", (allowing the 7 & 62 to be added together, separating the 62 from what follows) (faking prophecy)
   "seven weeks (sevens); and sixty-two weeks (sevens)..."
   
   
6. Rev 1:13 and 14:14,
   like the son of man,
   like a son of man

avi

with a view towards identifying attempts to alter the literal translation to conform to a contemporary theological ideology.

Apologies for straying off topic, in the discussion with Stephan re: Irenaeus, which then should be split off to another thread, I suppose, for I at least, if no one else, find Stephan's discussion of Irenaeus' "translation" of Genesis 1:1 to be both interesting, and challenging.

Here is the link provided by spin.

spin assigns thumbs down to "In the beginning god created", and, based upon the translation offered at that link, thumbs up to the version identified as "Young's literal translation", which was prepared in 1898 : "in the beginning of god's preparing..."

Perhaps 1898 is "modern".

If I have understood the OP, one seeks to create a list of contradictory translations of passages of potential theological significance, where at least one of the two passages represents a contemporary translation.

Here is a passage, which may or may not qualify for such a list. It is, perhaps worthy of exclusion from such a list by virtue of illustrating an insufficiently significant theological argument.

The general discussion of this passage took place a bit more than a year ago,
here.

Mark 7:31
The new living translation attempts to reconcile the geographical imprecision found in Mark's text (but, as noted in that thread from 14 months ago, the various ancient sources are very different one from another, as if an argument about the text had existed already 15 centuries ago....)

Both of these two modern translations offer an explanation of dia sidon compatible with Hort and Westcott and the Alexandrian Greek versions, in contrast to the traditional translation based upon the Byzantine Majority Greek version.

The 2007 version, but not the 2008 version, attempts to reconcile the obvious blunder vis a vis Lake Galilee's geographic distance from Sidon. It also corrects, contrary to the 2008 version, the blunder that the Lake lies in the middle of the Decapolis, when in fact, only the southeastern corner of this large freshwater body, touches the extreme border of NW Decapolis.

avi

mrsonic

are the dogs wild dogs or trained dogs?

spin

Do you think people would normally have wild dogs under their tables (especially with children at the table)?